In a previous post (So what's the deal with smart contracts?), I questioned what smart contracts may do any good to humanity, and the only valid answer was about their use in gambling. Ponzi schemes might be another use. However, I hope you will also agree that those use cases are far from being revolutionary.

Now let's ask the same for Slock.it. What's the deal with it, I mean, in what ways does Slock.it serve better than its centralized counterparts, apart from enabling payments to be made in a cryptocurrency? Payments are already doable in cryptocurrencies via certain payment processors. So let's say an alternative Slock.it builds gadgets which work in a centralized way, and at the same allows bitcoin payments.

You want to rent your car in an automated way? Install that PayPal/BitPay integrated gadget to your car, or get it installed in this or that way. What does Slock.it offer better than this alternative?

Thank you for your answers in advance,

Jian

Post Script

So what's the deal with it?

Do you mean people are throwing money to a project which has equal possibilities for being big or worthless, without knowing the potential ahead? I don't think so. At least, I don't want to believe that. What I want is someone to explain what it could be done with Slock.it which renders it a revolutionary project.

@tokeweed,

Bitcoin has at least one real use case which proves better than its traditional counterparts, that is, sending money with low costs and with increased security, anonymity and transparency. So I believe it would be wrong to equate Slock.it with Bitcoin.

Best,

Jian

@tokeweed,

I strongly disagree. The implications regarding the abovementioned use case of Bitcoin exist even in Satoshi's paper. The fact that the potential was actualized much later does not change anything. If someone could come up with a real use case potential, even if that potential be just an idea, the answer is valid. Then that would mean people do not just throwing money to a project with no known possible use case, but they throw money to a potentially cool one.

I think we need to distinguish between different kinds of believing in a project's potential. One may believe in a project blindly, or one may believe in a project by knowing its potential. People may even believe that the outcome of a "head or tails" game will be heads, and put their money into that bet. So my question is, what type of believers are the Slock.it believers?

Best,

Jian

"real use case potential..." I would enjoy to see this on the table.

@ttookk,

I also appreciate the idea of building a software to make everything easier regarding such renting operations. What I don't understand is the superiority of a decentralized application over its possible centralized counterparts.

A single keychain suitable for many different keys, that's a great idea. But this would be a revolutionary protocol only if the underlying technology sustains widespread adoption, and this has nothing to do with that technology's being decentralized. A closed-sourced mobile app would achieve the same feasibility if mainstream adoption is sustained.

Best,

Jian

I havn't really seen this discussed much, but IMO Slock.it's ideas are not really all that new. It is IoT backbone infrastructure with the plan to sell things that run on it.

There is a Bitcoin company called 21 Inc that you may have heard of. They raised $120m in venture capital and they are doing this exact same kind of work.

https://21.co/buy/ - scroll to the bottom where it says "BUILD BITCOIN APPS"
http://www.coindesk.com/21-proof-concept-bitcoin-iot/
This is the same kind of stuff that Slock.it wants to do.

21 Inc created a "Bitcoin computer" based on a Raspberry Pi that basically runs a full Bitcoin node, and now is creating applications that run on top of that computer.

Slock.it wants to create an "Ethereum Computer" that is similar, but then open source the reference design for it so that the market can be flooded with these devices.

The main difference between these stack implementations is that Bitcoin requires separate applications running on top of the blockchain whereas Ethereum can use smart contracts on the blockchain to obtain the same functionality. Thats a pretty big advantage.

Slock.it is proposing to build what they are calling the "Universal Sharing Network" that is basically a bunch of smart contracts that the DAO will own and this will provide an API that devices can autonomously communicate with.

This is the moonshot. Provide the entire backbone of the IoT industry.

@sandiman,

There are two decentralizations here.

1) The decentralization of the payment.

2) The decentralization of the renting application.

Let's try to understand how Slock.it operates through an example you give, someone's renting their Wi-Fi connection to someone else. The decentralization of the payment is already possible with bitcoin, and it amounts to an increased efficiency in many aspects, which I suppose we all agree on. The second decentralization, that is, the decentralization of the renting application, on the other hand, seems to be a bit controversial.

Your argument is based on the view that "Centralized companies and databases could not provide such services" to handle that much data. However, there are ways to handle big data without the help of the blockchain technology.

Going on with our example, Alice wants to rent her Wi-Fi connection to his neighbor Bob, let's say. Then, Alice may set up a closed-sourced propriety software which would allow to share her Wi-Fi access with Bob in return of bitcoin payments. No centralized database is needed in this scenario, and it should actually be the case that trying to put all the renting operations into one global blockchain is way less efficient than setting up such a system.


@Sark,

Continuing with the above example, the software Alice uses could be used by anyone willing to share their Wi-Fi access, so there is only one application for one purpose. And if someone wants to rent their car, then another application will be needed. As far as I understand, it goes the same as Slock.it. So I couldn't understand your point when you say "Bitcoin requires separate applications running on top of the blockchain whereas Ethereum can use smart contracts on the blockchain to obtain the same functionality."

And all the more so, handling transactions with the help of separate applications should be more efficient than trying to handle the entire renting operations of the World through one blockchain, shouldn't it?


@ttookk,

Although the idea of decentralized smart contracts intrigues me as well, I am at the same time suspicious about what the deal is with them, as the OP title goes. And it is not the same with Bitcoin or the Waves platform. Their potential benefit is obvious even before the idea is actualized. So if you say that it is just a philosophical decision to choose the way of smart contracts or not, then I would like to ask you if you think the same for Bitcoin.


Best,

Jian

Why would people use one different application for renting their car, their house, wifi, etc when they could do it through one ? and in your exemple, when do we know when bob should pay alice without the smart contract ?